High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 07 CHH CK 0071

Shri Swaroop Chand Jain and Another vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 7 July 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satish K. Agnihotri, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition C No 2630 of 2009

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 1,386 words

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Writ Petiton Under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

1.

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent authorities to pay the balance amount with interest and interest on the interest due from the date of acquisition of their property and further, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for hardship and agony sffered by the Petitioners.

2.

The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the Petitioners, are that way back in the year1946, the land of the Petitioners admeasuring 4.20 acres situated at khasra No. 207/2 at Bhanpuratappur, was acquired by the Forest Department without due process of law. The Petitioners made several representations, legal notices and made various correspondences with the Respondent authorities for grant of compensation or for allotment of alternate plot, but nothing was done. Later on, in the year 1985, the land acquisition proceeding started by issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act,1894'') but when no award could be passed within the stipulated period as provided u/s 11(A) of the Act, 1894, the proceeding lapsed.

3.

Thereafter, again notification u/s 4 and 6 was issued on 03.05.1989 (Annexure P/7) and award was passed on 25.08.1990 and an amount of Rs. 17,26,000/- was awarded. However, the full compensation was not paid but an amount of Rs. 9,90,544/- was paid in the year 1993 and the balance amount was paid in the year 2009. The Petitioner is claiming interest on the part of the amount which remained unpaid from the date possession of the land was taken till final payment was made, under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1894.

4.

Shri Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, would submit that in the year 1945-46, the land admeasuring 2.25 acres was illegally and arbitrarily occupied by the Forest Department without notice to the Petitioner or without obtaining any consent. Thereafter, in the year 1973, 1.95 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 207/2 was again encroached upon and thus, a total land admeasuring 4.20 acres of the Petitioners was acquired by the Respondent authorities.

5.

Shri Surana, would further submit that the Petitioners made several representations/communication to the Respondent authorities for grant of compensation or any alternate plot. After 17 years, a notification u/s 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued 03.05.1989 which was already acquired by the Respondents in the year 1947 and 1973 respectively. Thus, the Petitioners had no opportunity for filing of any objection u/s 5A of the Act, 1894 as it was stated that the acquisition fell u/s 17 of the Act, 1894. After the said notification dated 03.05.1989 (Annexure P/7), an award dated 12.11.1990 (Annexure P/8) was passed and the property was valued to the tune of Rs. 16,38,000/- with interest of Rs. 88,200/-. However, only Rs. 9,91,544/- was paid on 31.03.1993 and thereafter, the balance amount of Rs. 7,34,656/- was paid to the Petitioner on 13.01.2009. However, no interest has been paid on the amount, which remained unpaid for long time which the Petitioners became entitled to under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1894.

6.

On the other hand, Shri Dwivedi, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/Respondents, would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. If the Petitioner was aggrieved by non payment of any part of the award, the Petitioner ought to have filed an application u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 before the competent civil court. Further, so far as the interest part is concerned, the award amount was paid in the year 1993 and at that time, without any protest, the Petitioners accepted the entire amount and after lapse of 16 years, he has preferred this petition. Thus, on the ground of delay also, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.

Shri Dwivedi, would further submit that as per Section 34 of the Act, 1894, interest is payable on the principal amount, and not on the amount of interest itself. The Petitioner has been awarded Rs. 16,38,000/-with interest of Rs. 88,200/- after valuation of the property.

8.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

9.

Indisputably, the possession of a portion of land in dispute admeasuring 4.20 acres was taken over in 1946 and thereafter, the remaining portion admeasuring 1.95 acres of land was taken over in the year 1973 by the State authorities, illegally and without following the proper procedure of law for acquisition of the land held by the Petitioners.

10.

It is also not in dispute that notification under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 3-5-1989. Thereafter, provisions of Section 5A was invoked denying opportunity of objections to the Petitioners. The award was finally passed on 12-11-1990. The value of the land was determined at Rs. 16,38,000/- with interest at Rs. 88,200/- in total Rs. 17,26,200/-. It is also not disputed by the State authorities that a sum of Rs. 9,91,544/- was paid on 31-3-1993 and the remaining amount was paid on 13-1-2009.

11.

Now the question is as to whether the Petitioners are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking over of the possession of the land in question or from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification ?

12.

Law in this respect is well settled that u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894 the market value shall be determined on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) and the interest shall be payable from the date of taking over possession of the land.

13.

In the case on hand, possession was taken over much before publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Since the Petitioners have not raised any dispute from the date of taking over of possession till notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published, the Petitioners may not be entitled to interest. Further, the Petitioners have also accepted the compensation amount determined with the award dated 12-11-1990. Thus, the Petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the remaining period from the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894.

14.

Accordingly, the Petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the total amount from the date of notification u/s 4(1) dated 3-5-1989 for a period of one year and 15% for the remaining period till the payment is made. In case of payment of Rs. 9,91,544/- the interest, as aforestated, will be payable up to 31-3-1993 and in case of the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 7,34,656/-, the interest, at the rate, as observed hereinabove, shall be payable up to 13-1-2009.

15.

The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and Anr. observed as under:

12.

Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act:

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.

16.

In view of foregoing, it is ordered that the State/Respondents shall calculate the interest, as aforestated, from the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1894, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

17.

Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein the possession was taken over long back, though, the dispute was not raised by the Petitioners earlier, the Petitioners were deprived of their constitutional right, as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, thus, the Petitioners are entitled to cost, as the Respondent authorities have illegally & unauthorisedly taken over the possession of the land in dispute.

18.

For the reasons and analysis mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, this petition is allowed with costs quantified to be a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.